Self-Hating American Jews

The difference between radical Muslims and liberal American Jews is that the former seek to become martyrs, while the latter aspire to become victims. In an ironic twist of fate, radical Muslims and liberal American Jews were made for each other.

This ideological symbiosis is sufficient to give pause to the presence of intelligent design. But like all things that seem to emanate from a higher power, there is a paradoxical twist. It is not themselves that liberal American Jews want to sacrifice on the altar of victimhood; it is their Israeli brethren.

Barack Hussein Obama received nearly eighty percent of the Jewish vote and still garners strong approval among America’s Jews. In contrast, only six percent of the Jewish Israelis support Obama.

Even before the election, Israeli Jews, unlike their sycophantic American brethren, saw through Obama.

Israelis were the least supportive population anywhere in the Western world of the inexperienced politician turned presidential candidate.

Jews in Boston Support the Killing of Jews in Israel

To support Obama, liberal Jews had to engage in a set of incredible mental gymnastics. They had to ignore his twenty-year relationship with the anti-Semitic minister Reverend Jeremiah Wright. They had to ignore his strong personal relationship with the virulent anti-Zionist Rashid Khalidi. They had to ignore his statement to the Iowa caucuses that no one has suffered more than the Palestinian people. They had to ignore his support of his Kenyan cousin and genocidal strongman Raila Odinga, an advocate of Sharia. They had to ignore Obama’s own Muslim heritage. They had to ignore that anti-Israel policy experts such as Samantha Power (who now has her own special seat on the National Security Council), Susan Rice, and General James Jones had the real inside tract on advising Obama on the Middle East.

Since the election, Obama’s policies toward Israel have been treacherous, and the reaction of the liberal Jewish community can only be described as inconceivable. When Obama demanded a freeze on the settlements, including organic growth and building in East Jerusalem, the reformed rabbis could barely wait to support him. Even the Jewish Daily Forwardeditorialized on behalf of freezing settlements, as if the settlements were the obstacle to peace and prior exchanges of land for peace had actually resulted in the reign of peace rather than the rain of rockets.

Obama’s unwillingness to do what first world nation states traditionally do — honor the commitments and obligations of a prior administration — should have generated outrage from the Jewish community. After all, Obama summarily and capriciously dismissed the commitments the Bush administration made with regard to the settlements — commitments that were made, according to Elliot Abrams, to secure Israel’s painful withdrawal from Gaza and Northern Samaria. If for no other reason than the inconceivable precedent that will impair all of our future international relations, liberal Jews, ever concerned about the fine points of law, should have been up in arms.

Delusional Jews

But their support for Obama was unflinching, their outrage, absent.

Obama’s Cairo speech linked Israel with the Holocaust, ignoring both 3,500 years of Jewish history and European history of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The speech then went on an embarrassing rant of moral equivalence by comparing the self-imposed suffering of the Palestinians to the Holocaust.

Even so, liberal Jews did not wince.

The Obama administration’s embrace of the myth of the Israeli Defense Forces being responsible for civilian casualties in Gaza — a justification for the administration’s refusal to sell advanced helicopters to democratic Israel though they have been totally willing to sell them to the military dictatorship of Egypt — did not produce outrage. The administration’s refusal to sell advanced fighter aircraft to Israel has caused no concern among liberal Jews.

The establishment of George Mitchell in an unprecedented resident envoy post in Israel, staffed by a band of anti-Zionists, has produced not even so much as a whimper. After all, one thousand useful-idiot rabbis signed a petition authored by the infamous Brit Tzedek calling for such an envoy, although it is doubtful that even the idiot rabbis expected George Mitchell and his anti-Zionist henchmen would be staffing the operation.

Still, the Brit Tzedek signatories have not asked for their names to be withdrawn from the petition nor have they articulated any public regret.

The foreign policy theme of the Obama administration has been that George W. Bush and his neocon advisers have caused the world’s international political crises. Bush, who possesses a strong personal vision of foreign policy and an IQ higher than the ever vaunted John Kerry, is caricatured as a simpleton manipulated by a Jewish cabal. Let us hasten to remember that George W. Bush would not have waited to condemn the Iranian regime as it shot demonstrators in the street nor would he have stood on the side of Hugo Chavezin the Honduran coup.

George W. Bush has a vision of America. Barack Obama only possesses a vision of himself. No one manipulated George Bush, and it is an anti-Semitic ploy to characterize Bush as a simpleton manipulated by Jews.

But liberal Jewish hatred of George W. Bush is so pronounced that, even at the expense of the libel of Jewish exploitation of Bush’s alleged incompetence, such images are totally compatible with liberal Jewish thinking. They are also its mainstay.

Obama’s anti-Israel stand will not find opposition in the Jewish community; it will find endorsement. Liberal American Jews embrace victimhood. The idea of a tough Israel willing to defend itself is counter to the psychological needs of the liberal American Jewish community, needs that might best be described as battered-wife syndrome. If Palestinians in Gaza launch missiles at Sderot, it is because Israel has done something wrong. “Oh, Palestinians only launch missiles and suicide bombers because they have no other way to protest. If only Israel gave them more land. If only Israel took up the road blocks. If only Israel apologized to them for causing them to blow up pizza parlors, discos, and shopping malls. If only Israel understood their culture.”

Most Jews can no more abandon their liberalism than can non-Jews. Take the liberals I have encountered in Berkeley who looked at the tragedy of 9/11 and said, “It’s our foreign policy.” They said it with all the delusional smugness that they were saying something profound and not something illustrative of a psychological deficiency or mental disease. They too needed to justify victimhood, and again with someone else actually being the victim.

Obama represents the wedge between Israelis and liberal American Jews. For the latter, Obama still garners high numbers in the polls; among the former, it is hard to find an Israeli Jew who does not understand the threat Obama presents to his very survival.

Liberal Jews are generally a secular people, but they are not a godless people, and in Barack Obama, they have certainly found their messiah.

Nick Griffin: Sink Immigrant Boats

This interview is from the BBC. It is presented here in this YouTube clip by someone who, apparently, agrees with Nick Griffin.

I do not.

If one can patrol the Mediterranean and sink these boats, one can also turn them back. No one has the right to just show up in England and live there. Obviously, we wouldn't allow just anyone to knock at our door, come in, and start living in our home, so why would we allow the same in our nations?

We should not. So, in a sense, I am in agreement with Nick Griffin. There is a sense in which this kind of immigration is an act of invasion or "war". And, it demands strong counter-measures.

However, I present this video to you so you can see how knee-jerk reflexively Nick Griffin moves towards genocidal solutions to problems which could and should have other solutions.

Just In Case You Don't Know, In Iran You Can Be Executed For Becoming a Christian

Marzieh Amirizadeh, 30, and Maryam Rustampoor, 27, have been held for over four months in Tehran's notorious Evin prison. (BosNewsLife)

Two Iranian women face execution for converting to Christianity. The two are being held in the notorious Evin Prison along with hundreds of Iranian democracy activists.Bos News Life reported:

Two detained Christian women are "in danger of being forgotten" amid concerns they may face execution, Iranian Christians said Tuesday, July 7.

Marzieh Amirizadeh, 30, and Maryam Rustampoor, 27, have been held for over four months in Tehran's notorious Evin prison apparently for converting to Christianity from Islam.

Iranian Christians and rights investigators said the two young women, who were arrested March 5, suffered sleep deprivation as part of police interrogations and were held in solitary confinement for three weeks in May and early June.

Later, they were put together in one small cell for about two weeks before being moved to a larger area to make place for other inmates, including many protesters who were detained following last month's disputed presidential elections, said Christians with close knowledge about the situation.

About 600 women were reportedly brought to Evin prison during the protests.

There was still no clarity regarding the case of the two Christian women, Tuesday, July 7, with one judge reportedly telling them they were both to be executed as ‘apostates’. "Maryam and Marzieh have responded with courage, however, telling the judge to 'expedite his sentence'," said Pray for Iran, an Internet initiative of Iranian churches.

What the Fuck?

America's first black president spoke with a bluntness that perhaps could only come from a member of Africa's extended family.

"No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or if police can be bought off by drug traffickers," he said

"No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery.

"That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there," he said, "and now is the time for that style of governance to end."

Yeah, no shit.

So, why tell Africa? Why not tell yourself?

Apparently, what is good for Africa is not good for the American people? I don't get it.

Arresting Moslem Extremists Is A No-No?

POLICE will be ordered not to charge Muslim extremists in many hate crime cases – to stop them becoming more militant.

Guidelines will tell forces to press for conviction only in cases of clear-cut criminal acts.

Officers will be advised not to proceed when evidence of lawbreaking is “borderline”.

Examples of crimes to which a blind eye may be turned include incitement to religious hatred or viewing extremist material on the internet.

Last night critics warned that the move could mean Islamic radicals being give the freedom to encourage violence.

Some saw the move as a politically correct attempt to appease extremists who hate Britain.

It could even mean officers tolerating many activities of Muslim preachers of hate like the hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza.

Tory MP David Davies said: “This sounds like abject surrender. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.

“It doesn’t matter whether someone is suspected of incitement to hatred or shoplifting – they should all face the same risk of prosecution.

“There should be no special favours or treatment for any section of the community.”

Officials insist there is no suggestion that people who have clearly committed offences will avoid prosecution.

Instead, they want to avoid alienating Muslims on the fringes of extremism by dragging them to court over petty allegations unlikely to result in conviction.

One fear is that some young Muslims are falling under the influence of extremist preachers while serving prison sentences or on remand awaiting trial.

A senior Whitehall official said the guidance was being drawn up as part of a drive to use persuasion rather than the criminal justice system to fight extremism.

He added: “The aim is to stop people being dragged into extremism.

“We are not talking about letting someone off who has committed a clear offence, but where it is unclear if an offence has been committed.

“For instance, where there has been incitement or someone has been on the internet there can be a grey area where there is some discretion and it would be more sensible to avoid going down the criminal route.”

The Government’s counter- terrorism board is drawing up the advice, which will be sent to all police forces, including the Metropolitan, later this year.

The move follows an updated Home Office counter-terrorism strategy announced earlier this year. The new strategy urges preventative measures to win round potential extremists instead of arrest and prosecution.

“We need to be able to provide support for individuals who are drawn into criminal activity,” the document says.

Councils, community groups and the Government’s youth justice board will be among organisations expected to identify those drawn into extremism or at risk.

Social workers, teachers and other professionals will be asked to try to work with some Muslim youths to reduce the likelihood of them turning into extremists.

But the new strategy is likely to reduce the likelihood of prosecutions against Islamist extremists protesting against troops.

In Luton earlier this year, protesters displayed placards bearing the words “butchers” and “animals” at a homecoming parade for 2nd Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment. There were no arrests for incitement.

A Home Office spokesman said: “Preventing people becoming radicalised is a key priority for the Government. The police response needs to be proportionate to deal with crimes people commit while reducing the risk to public safety.”

The latest move represents a reversal of the policy introduced under Tony Blair in the wake of the terrorist attacks in London in 2005, when as Prime Minister he called for an overhaul of the criminal justice system to root out and prosecute extremists.

Past attempts to win over potential Muslim radicals have frequently run into controversy. Millions of pounds have been pledged to fund Muslim groups, drawing claims that they are receiving special treatment.

Different rules of law and different methods of law enforcement for different groups? How can a nation remain a nation with that kind of division?

I can see how this special treatment for Moslems could be extended to an official governmental politcy of no criticism of Islam allowed by anyone in the UK. Mustn't rile up those extremists, you know.

Four short years after the London bombings, the UK is apparently moving from prosecuting traitors, terrorists, and seditionists to giving a pass to those wanting to destroy the UK's way of life. In other words, "reach out" to Moslems. Where have we heard that phrase before?

Anything to avoid addressing the ideology driving the jihadist movement.

Ahmed Abu Ali May Sue

There are a couple of signs pointing to the idea that Abu Ali might sue. He already has a lawyer, who spoke to the AP briefly about this episode. Abu Ali also filed a handwritten prison complaint form, saying the Obama book rejections “violate my 1st Amend. rights.”

The above article begins with this:

Back in 2007, the Bureau of Prisons directed its chaplains to purge the prisons of all religious texts. That policy shift, which stemmed from a governmental fear that prisoners might read religious texts and become Islamic extremists after 9/11, sparked huge response.

Many thought the move was unconstitutional, and a pair of inmates, citing the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to free religion, sued over the matter.

No wonder that Ahmed Abu Ali, terrorist graduate from Terror High (aka the Islamic Saudi Academy) wants to check out BHO's books, even though Abu Ali is of Arab descent and not black. By reading BHO's books, Abu Ali can continue to feed his perpetual attitude of victimhood because the words "The West" could be easily substituted for "white folks," "white people," "white" anything. Or perhaps Abu Ali wants to reinforce his anti-American views by reading BHO's books.

Ahmed Abu Ali, valedictorian graduate from Terror High (aka the Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax County, Virginia) and convicted terrorist, is an Arab. Arab racism toward blacks is well documented. In addition, Abu Ali requested those books before BHO was elected and gave his dhimmi Cairo Speech. I find it hard to believe that Abu Ali wants to read books by The Great Satan's first African-American President because Abu Ali wants to be a good citizen.

And if Abu Ali indeed has an attorney, who is paying for that attorney or which attorney is serving pro bono?

Abu Ali is presently serving a 30-year sentence. Hey, maybe he's planning to try for early release by volunteering at SERVE.gov.

Taking the Cake

The leader of a Paris gang has been sentenced to life in prison in France for the torture and murder of a Jewish man, Ilam Halimi, in 2006.

That the Barbarian was Islamic is not mentioned anywhere. Rather he is a 'barbarian.' How random. The only reference to religious characteristics is a repeat of the tortures' claim that Halimi was tortured because "Jews are loaded." So the article covers for the type of Islam coming from the Ivory Coast and spreads Jewish stereotypes out of the Protocols.

The use of the word "gang" is also a coverup. 29 people are charged with being involved. Up to fifty people in the building in which , from all walks of life, knew about this torture. It was not a gang activity; it was a neighborhood community project. Anti-semitism runs deep in the Islamic culture. Many in the Islamic Ivory Coast community have very diverse morals. Cultural diversity is real. It is not racist to note that. It is culturist. Instead, in a PC multicultural move, the BBC called this the work of a gang.

Thanks to the BBC for perpetuating the multicultural lie that cultural diversity is only always cute. The BBC assured us that this crime nothing to do with the type of Islamic culture coming from the Ivory Coast to France. It was the work of barbarian gang. And, on the way, they reprint slander against Jews. To their credit, in not mentioning Islam, they did not call anyone who mentioned it a racist. But, BBC for this article you still take the freakin' PC multicultural cover-up cake.

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."

The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were a lawyer again, what would she "want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda."

Ginsburg responded:

Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.

Question: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.

Think about that statement. Go ahead and try to figure out what she could have meant by it.

Anyway you slice it it is still among the most ugly, anti-human statements ever uttered by a major figure on the American political scene.

Coptic Christian family deported

Action: a group of heavily armed uniformed men and women swoop to snatch the targets, surprising them as they sleep. The targets are just given enough time to dress before being bundled into vans and taken into custody.

Is this some BBC TV series, where macho men and women strive to save the nation from the deadly plots of pro-life Christians or Opus Dei?

Or is it a scene from a Le Carré or a Kafka novel where the dastardly police from East Germany or Mittel Europa swoop down on the enemies of the people? Or is it occupied France where the Gestapo are arresting members of the Maquis?

No.

It is last Wednesday in England.

The valiant assault team were Immigration Officers and police arresting a Coptic Christian Family to deport them back to Egypt.

Hany Ayoub Mansour, his wife Samah and children Nardin, 10, Karin, seven, three-year-old twins Bishoy and Anastasia, and one-year-old Angela, were seized by armed immigration officers in a dawn swoop on their home.

Hany was a businessman in Luxor, Egypt, but he and his family had fled to the UK four years ago after Muslim extremists burned his car, destroyed his house and tortured him. In short, he was a Christian fleeing persecution, and was granted safe refuge in the United Kingdom.

They were all asleep at their home in Manchester when there was a very loud knock at the door. By the time he had gone downstairs, their visitors had already snapped the chain and burst through the door.

Mr Mansour said: "There were about 14 officers in the house and more outside. They told me to sit in a chair and not move. They didn’t even let me go to the toilet. It was very frightening and my children were scared."

They took away Hany in one van and the mother and bewildered children in another.

The experience of Hany and his family is reminiscent of what happened to the Kachepa family in 2005, with a dawn raid at their house in Weymouth, and similar treatment with an estimated 19 police officers. They were bundled into a car and driven to Yarl’s Wood in Bedfordshire, with no time to eat or drink.

Cranmer has continuing concerns about the ‘open-door’ policy of this discredited government. There is a continuing flood of economic migrants entering the country, with especially large numbers from Pakistan. Migration Watch has drawn attention to the six-fold increase in remittances sent to Pakistan from this country since 2001, the number of bona fide workers has risen by 67 per cent. There could be as many as 200,000 Pakistanis working illegally in Britain.

Public dismay and anger over government incompetence leads it to seek the easy targets. Back in 2005, Ann Widdecombe said that when a government is target-based – in this case deportation – it will pick on the weakest.

Recently, the ever-vigilant Immigration Officers deported a group of teenagers who had journeyed to the UK from the First United Methodist Church of Okeechobee Florida. They had come to do missionary work at a church in Islington.

Now a Christian family will shortly find itself on a plane to Egypt to face an uncertain future. They do not know whether they will be subject to further persecution by extremists, but this is of no concern to Her Majesty’s Government.

Yet it is strange that when a Muslim terrorist faces deportation, concerns that the criminal might face ill treatment on arrival in his native country are sufficient to halt all deportation proceedings.

Human Rights, you see.

Some groups seem to have more of them.

Cranmer sincerely wishes the Mansour family well, and prays that they will not suffer a repeat of the persecution that drove them to the UK in the first place. But the situation for Copts is increasingly fraught; indeed, they are being systematically 'cleansed'.

Should the worst happen, the apparatchiks in this country have a time-honoured mantra: ‘Lessons will be learned’ they will say.

Why Yes, They're Evil

Disgraced ex-judge Alcee Hastings can hardly wait to throw his political opponents into concentration camps. As the Washington Examinerreports:

Rep. Alcee Hastings - the impeached Florida judge Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled - introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states' rights, or a host of other issues. In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, blasted the idea: "This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as 'extremists.'"

Another Hastings bill (HR 645) authorizes $360 million in 2009 and 2010 to set up "not fewer than six national emergency centers on military installations" capable of housing "a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster." But Section 2 (b) 4 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to use the camps "to meet other appropriate needs" - none of which are specified. This is the kind of blank check that Congress should never, ever sign.

I wonder if Hastings plans on transporting his victims in boxcars, with a shower at the end of the trip. This could be why the Democrats can hardly wait to empty Gitmo. Progressives are master of projection. They spent eight years attacking Republicans for the Patriot Act. They spent eight years attacking George W. Bush for allegedly planning to gut the Bill of Rights. And when the Democrats get into power they set out to do everything they accused the Republicans of. H.R. 645 is the fruit of Hate Crime legislation that has wide support on the left. Everyone they hate will now be declared a "domestic terrorist."

Update: Yes, very evil. The anonymous reporter Zombie provides this expose on what passes for science in the Obama Era:

"Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force."

Here is just one quote from Holdren's Mein Kampf:

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

Just another reminder that the eugenics movement of the twentieth century was a respectable Progressive cause; just as today, it's a respectable environmentalist cause. The above quote should be read with the so-called Cap and Trade bill in mind. The book in question is titled: Ecoscience. Its call number is: HB871 .E35 1977. The K-State university library has a copy, but it is checked out. I'll be checking it out next.

The After Party

My radio co-host, The Fu2rman, and I have a new radio show with a new format. It is no longer called the Infidel Bloggers Alliance Radio Show.

It is The After Party. And, by the way, I use my real name on this show. No longer am I Pastorius of the IBA Radio Show. My real name is Peter Dengler. So, all those mofos out there who want to kill me can now look me up in the phone book and come suck on the Dengler.

For those who are interested, the idea behind The After Party is expressed in the opening sequence which declares,

The town says time to shut it down. Last call for alcohol. The end of time, past our prime.

Screw that, we're just getting started. Kick the vampires out, so dearly departed. Get 'em the hell out of here. Let's kick this thing into high gear.

We'll blast through the night. We give you warning. You're in our sites. And, we're the one's who will see the morning.

The After Party with your hosts Pete Dengler and the Fu2rman.

My point? Basically, I'm tired of all the negativity. I'm tired of all the people telling me Western Civilization is coming to an end, the Jihadists are winning, we're living in the End Times, America is no longer America.

I'm done with all that bullshit.

America is not it's leaders. America is it's people. We are still the same people we were last year, we're still the same people we were after 9/11, and we're still the same people we were when Reagan was elected.

And, I even believe we are the same people we were during World War II. Give us a visceral existential threat, and we will turn into vicious killers on the battlefield. We will fight with every last ounce of our being, and we will be victorious.

The After Party is a show for a Victorious America. It's not a show for people who babble like pussies about how we're going to lose while we're sitting in the locker room at halftime.

Anyway, we're just getting started with the show. We've done just a few episodes.

Click here to hear us Interview Culturist John about the realities of the Iranian situation, and the Iranians who actually live here in this country. Additionally, you can hear us interview El Presidente Hugo Chavez as we get his take on Obama and the situation in Honduras.

El Presidente describes how El Constitution is a Caballo (horse) and he is un Caballero (horseman). He says he ropes the Caballo, he rides el Caballo, and when the Caballo gets old and tired, he will shoot el Caballo in the head.

Obama's Books Banned From US Prisons-- TOO RADICAL

But, he's a moderate.Thank You State-Run Media For Vetting This Radical Before the Election.

Barack Obama's books were recently banned from the US government's most secure prison.The radical language in the books make them "potentially detrimental to national security."The AP reported:

The federal government's most secure prison has determined that two books written by President Barack Obama contain material "potentially detrimental to national security" and rejected an inmate's request to read them.

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali is serving a 30-year sentence at the federal supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, for joining al-Qaida and plotting to assassinate then-President George W. Bush. Last year, Abu Ali requested two books written by Obama: "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope."

But prison officials, citing guidance from the FBI, determined that passages in both books contain information that could damage national security.

A prison spokeswoman referred questions to the FBI, where a spokeswoman was looking into the matter Thursday evening.

The documents detailing the prison's rejection of Obama's books are included in court papers for a resentencing hearing scheduled later this month for Abu Ali, a U.S. citizen.

The rejection is just one indication of the harsh conditions imposed on inmates at the supermax prison, according to Abu Ali's lawyer, Joshua Dratel...

Prison officials cite specific pages - but not specific passages - in the books that they deem objectionable. They include one page in Obama's 1995 book, "Dreams from My Father," and 22 separate pages in his policy-oriented 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope." It was not immediately obvious what passages might have been deemed problematic, though nearly half of the pages cited are in a chapter devoted to foreign affairs.

The fact that the books promote racism probably didn't help.Here's one passage from his book Dreams of My Father:

"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere... That's the world! On which hope sits!"

The prison officials were probably concerned about stoking racial tensions(?)

Hamas Calls Jewish State Racism

After PM Netanyahu said that peace requires that the Arabs recognize Israel as a Jewish state, not just as an independent state, Hamas called the demand “racist” (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ -- Arutz-7, 6/16).

Half the Arab states are called “Islamic” republic /kingdom of such-and-such. Some bar Jews. The rest oppress Jews and other minorities. The Palestinian Authority and Jordan impose life sentences or worse on those who sell land to Jews. Hamas enforces strict Islamic law on Gazans. Why shouldn’t the Jewish people have a haven from Muslim persecution in a state of their own, in which to pursue their own national destiny? Isn’t it inconsistent of Hamas to deny another people to achieve voluntarily what it imposes upon its own people by beatings?

Hamas’ comment reflects the fundamental reason that the Arabs don’t permit peace. They do not recognize the right of Jews to their own state, primarily for not being Muslims and secondarily for not being Arabs. Hamas’ goal is a caliphate comprising the whole world, including the United States. It wants to impose Islamic law upon everybody. This is a major world problem.

To get an idea whether Palestinian Arabs sincerely want a state, click here:

The Parallel Government
Of The Entire World

All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.

Infidel Babe Of The Week
Can it be anyone else?

IBA Quote of the Week.

“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control."

The Infidel Bloggers Alliance Radio Show

Gathering Storm Report Radio Show

"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field," explained Ayatollah Khomeini. "There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."

****************

"I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't."~~~~~Bono~~~~~